Do you really think the AA policies we've had in this short period of time since the civil rights movement have made up for the "equal opportunity" damages of 300 + years of slavery and 90+ years of Jim Crow Laws? Do you think it's even come close? Until you can make a case for that, you have no business talking about how AA needs to end. 400 years of enlavement, discrimination, disenfranchisement, hate crimes, lynching, second class citizenship, and the list goes on...and you think in these few decades of AA policies we're all on equal footing again? That's simply absurd.

All I got out of this was "Whine, whine. Self entitlement. Whine, whine."

NEWS FLASH: Nothing will EVER make up for what occurred to Blacks in the past. AA-a racist, ineffective, and harmful program-is NOT the way to do it. Stop clinging to this horrible program like it is going to "fix" the past. Instead of AA, why isn't greater emphasis placed on programs that would lower teenage pregnancy, low graduation rates, extremely high rates of crime (especially of the violent variety), and so. These programs WOULD make a noticeable impact, yet are unpopular among urban populations because it doesn't involve free handouts. Stop trying to "correct the past" by using programs that require no commitment or effort on the part of the recipient. "Fixing" the past would require work-which is not popular, because the Dems have taught the poor to be dependent and believe that they will never be anything unless the Dems throw them the scraps from their political table.

To summarize: Stop crying and get over yourself.

This indicates you have exactly no clue what affirmative action is or does, nor do you have any clue as to what is actually going on, socially and politically, with programs that strive to lower teenage pregnancy, raise graduation rates, and lower inner city crime.

Or rather, you have your head in a hole (most likely your own ass), and you have a certain image of how things are that is quite out of step with reality.

But it makes you feel better, and without it you wouldn't have a shtick to play off, so have at it, kitty cat.

Anyone who thinks that AA is a "racist and harmful" program is obviously racist. It's not about crying, whining or asking for handouts. It's about providing equal opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups. Why is that so hard for people to understand. Please provide a logical response.

Anyone who thinks that AA is a "racist and harmful" program is obviously racist. It's not about crying, whining or asking for handouts. It's about providing equal opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups. Why is that so hard for people to understand. Please provide a logical response.

I'll take a stab and then bow out because I don't want to get into this: The reason, I think, that people can't understand the justification for AA is because they do not see it as providing equal opportunity. They see it as providing more opportunities to minorities. I AM NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE, but I see a lot of them where I live. I think it's because there are not a lot of opportunities for people in my locale to see the real disadvantage that exists in areas with more minorities. I would not, however, go as far as to say that all of these people are racists just because they point out that it's not an equal opportunity system in all cases; because they are right, it's not. Everyone can agree that not all whites are privleged and not all minorities are unprivleged. There will be instances where an advantage (or disadvantage) will be given to someone who doesn't really need the help.

The justification, as far as I have concluded is best described using something like LS admissions as an example: Say a school gets 6500 apps per year. It cannot feasibly seach into the economic and social advantage of every one of those applicants. So it concludes based on the averages. If I walk down the street, see a black guy, and assume he is poor based on his being black, I will be wrong plenty of times (on many levels). But if I make the same judgment about a white guy, I will be wrong on an economic level many more times. Sure, maybe a white applicant came from a poor background, his parents passed away early, he dealt with prejudice because is was in a wheelchair, whatever. Yeah, maybe a black girl grew up as the daughter of a wealthy businessman and got a Mercedes onher 16th, OK. But if the adcomms are going to get decisions out before August, they are going to have to trust the numbers a little bit. Besides, the white disadvantaged can indicate that they are such in additional materials and receive a boost as well. Is this racism? If making determinations about somebody based soley on race is racist, then, yes. But I bet not a single person would ever want it to be necessary. But, I think it is, right now. The people who are against AA simply disagree that anyone should be entitled to an advantage over others. Many of them do not realize just how deep American history has cut minorities. Some are racist.

As someone said earlier, AA will continue to be justified until there is an proportionate number of minorities who are in influential positions. This tends to infiltrate higher education first. Asian Americans are not given URM staus because they are not underrepresented anyomre. But they still benefit from AA in the workplace as far as I have seen (although, that is dwindling too). Once the rest of the minority groups catch up, I bet you'll see URM status become less and less of an issue in higher education. To me, therein lies the only commendable reason to support AA: practice it now with the hope that doing so will prevent you from having to in the future. I think we're still a long way from the tipping point.

So because he is a conservative and is adamantly against fool-hardy liberal policies he is a "sell out"? It is interesting how it is okay to tear down and make racist remarks/action toward a black conservative (throwing Oreos as Michael Steele), but totally unacceptable to claim a black Dem is an idiot because of their ideas without being called a racist.

Zoloft-No crusade, I just think AA is wrong and that America is better than a system that chooses race/gender over merit.

I believe that there will ALWAYS be racism in America. When I lived in Paterson, NJ I could not believe how much of a target I became because I was White. Black friends I had made awful comments about Hispanics. Hispanic friends said racist things about Blacks.

Continuing to use a system that potentially creates resentment and continually promotes mediocrity (whereas a merit based system promotes competition and choosing the most qualified) past its point of usefulness, is not good for capitalism, not good for improving race relations, and .

I agree that AA was needed when it was first implemented. The problem with such a program is that no one is EVER going to agree that it should be ended. As long as Whites are the majority, there is always going to be the cry of "institutional racism". So are you proposing that AA continue until there are more Blacks and Hispanics than Whites? If this is the case, then I would venture that your motivations are racist.

As long as Whites are the majority, there is always going to be the cry of "institutional racism". So are you proposing that AA continue until there are more Blacks and Hispanics than Whites? If this is the case, then I would venture that your motivations are racist.

I know this isn't what you're on about, but being in the majority doesn't mean that you stop being oppressed. Look at South Africa.

As long as Whites are the majority, there is always going to be the cry of "institutional racism". So are you proposing that AA continue until there are more Blacks and Hispanics than Whites? If this is the case, then I would venture that your motivations are racist.

I know this isn't what you're on about, but being in the majority doesn't mean that you stop being oppressed. Look at South Africa.

Hey!

What?

::oppresses J::

Logged

Quote from: Earthbound SNES

Get a sense of humor, Susan B. Anthony!

Quote from: dashrashi

I'm going to cut a female dog. With a knife with a brown handle, natch.

As long as Whites are the majority, there is always going to be the cry of "institutional racism". So are you proposing that AA continue until there are more Blacks and Hispanics than Whites? If this is the case, then I would venture that your motivations are racist.

I know this isn't what you're on about, but being in the majority doesn't mean that you stop being oppressed. Look at South Africa.